 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorrells v. M.Y.B. Hospitality Ventures of Asheville11/19/1992
ff cannot dispute
either of these elements under the facts as alleged in the complaint. In fact, to the extent the allegations in the complaint establish more than ordinary negligence on the part of defendant, they also establish a similarly high degree of contributory negligence on the part of the decedent. Thus, we conclude that plaintiff cannot prevail.
In reaching our decision, we note that the same result has been reached by a majority of states that have considered this issue. See, e.g., Smith v. The 10th Inning, Inc., 49 Ohio 3d 289, 551 N.E.2d 1296 (1990) (Supreme Court of Ohio held that an intoxicated patron has no cause of action against a liquor permit holder where the injury sustained by the patron off the premises of the permit holder was proximately caused by the patron's own intoxication); Davis v. Stinson, 508 N.E.2d 65 (Ind. App. 4 Dist. 1987) (an intoxicated driver's operation of an automobile upon a public highway constitutes willful and wanton misconduct which bars recovery against the provider of alcohol for injuries to the driver); Sheehy v. Big Flats Community Day, Inc., 73 N.Y.2d 629, 636, 543 N.Y.S.2d 18, 22, 541 N.E.2d 18, 22 (1989) ("the courts of this State have consistently refused to recognize a common-law cause of action against providers of alcoholic beverages in favor of persons injured as a result of their own voluntary intoxication."); Bertelmann v. Taas Associates, 69 Haw. 95, 100, 735 P.2d 930, 933 (1987) (Supreme Court of Hawaii rejected "the contention that intoxicated liquor consumers can seek recovery from the bar or tavern which sold them alcohol. Drunken persons who harm themselves are solely responsible for their voluntary intoxication and cannot prevail under a common law or statutory basis."); Reed v. Black Caeser's Forge Gourmet Restaurant, Inc., 165 So.2d 787, 788 (Fla. App. 1964), cert. denied, 172 So.2d 597 (Fla. 1965)(Complaint did not state a cause of action because "the death of the plaintiff's husband was the result of his own negligence or his own voluntary act of rendering himself incapable of driving a car rather than the remote act of the defendant in dispensing the liquor[.]").
Accordingly, plaintiff's wrongful death claim against the provider of the alcohol is barred by the decedent's own actions as alleged in the complaint. Thus, the trial court correctly dismissed plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for reinstatement of the trial court's order dismissing plaintiff's complaint.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Disposition
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
|